Op-Ed: Fighting the War on Terror with Pens, Not Guns

Costing trillions of dollars, the ongoing war on terror has clearly not eliminated radical militancy throughout the world. Yet by connecting the dots, it is clear that there is an effective way to counter terrorism, and it doesn't involve combat.

The war on terror has been a long and costly one. Yet nearly every peace-loving citizen (regardless of nationality) realizes that it is a war that must be waged, and a war that must be won. However, fighting a war on terror is not a conventional engagement. In traditional wars, the enemy has a fixed location; the enemy has a centralized power structure; and the enemy organizes itself in a rational way. With terrorism, all of these truths have to be thrown out the window. With terrorism, the enemy has no fixed location – there are terrorist cells in many different countries. With terrorism, there is no single centralized power structure – at least not in the sense that one man and his many generals helmed Nazi Germany. With terrorism, there are not large flanks or advancing soldiers ready to meet on the field of battle – instead there are small groups of men who set out to attack societies in unconventional ways. However, there are some obvious trends in terrorism. Most prominently, terrorists are usually males, and secondly, they are usually under the age of 30. This is true no matter the country of terrorist activity, no mater the nationality of the terrorist, and no matter the weapons used. Bill Ayers was radical in his early twenties. Of the 19 terrorists who hijacked American Airlines flight 11, United Airlines flight 175, United Airlines flight 93, and American Airlines flight 77 on September 11th, 2001, 14 were under the age of 30; the average age among them being 24. The ages of four hijackers are unknown, and the oldest known person directly involved with the hijackings was 33. And today, Thursday, February 12, 2009, a featured article on theglobenadmail.com detailing the sentences against anti-Semitic and homophobic Montreal terrorists Omar Bulphred and Azim Ibragimov revealed that these two terrorists – responsible for firebombing a Jewish Orthodox school and plotting to bomb nuclear facilities, the Montreal stock exchange, a train station, as well as murdering a gay person – were aged 23 and 25. With this said, it is clear that young males throughout the world need better education, greater opportunities, and to be raised in an environment that doesn’t breed hate against society. In an article published in the wake of the London subway bombings of 2005, Jesuit Priest John Dear asked the simple question ‘how do we stop terrorism’ to the many people he met during a trip to Baghdad. The answers were just as simple; the citizens of Baghdad needed an environment conducive to prosperity, or at the very least, absent of constant violence:

“Everyone we met, from the Papal Nuncio to the Muslim Iman to the non-governmental organization leaders (including the late, great Margaret Hassan) to hundreds of high school children to the hundreds of mothers holding their dying children, said: “Don’t kill us!” That sounds so obvious, but they said it with tears. If you want to help us, don’t kill us! If you want us to live in peace, don’t kill us! If you want us to be friends with you, don’t kill us! If you want Iraq to create a new democracy, don’t kill us! Send us food and medicine instead, and fund nonviolent, democratic movements for peace. Then, we will live in peace with you.”

Of course, it is only common sense that it is impossible to bomb a country or a group of people into loving peace and rejecting radical militancy. Then again, with each passing day, it seems that those waging the war against terror fail to recognize this simple truth. Instead of sending food, medicine, and funding democratic movements such as universal education, the American Economic Association estimated that in 2007, three trillion dollars (yes, trillion dollars) had been spent on waging a physical, bloody war against terrorism. In all, we – peace-loving citizens throughout the world – have now witnessed years of a war on terror that has cost countless lives, dollars, and days; and left us in a world where the fringe citizens capable of being enticed by radical militancy have just as many reasons to pursue their ends as when the war on terror began. With all of this said, perhaps the best tactic to counter terrorism is not a physical war against it; perhaps the best weapon to counter and prevent terrorism is education. This is not a new idea, but is one that has not received nearly as much attention as it should. Randy Bisenz frames both the problem and solution to the question of terrorism in the 21st century very well:

“Problem: In many undeveloped Muslim countries education is not widely available to all citizens. Many of the boys and young men in these countries get their education in small religious schools called madrasas that teach a strict fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law to their students. Militant Islamic extremists use these schools as a vehicle for recruiting potential terrorists.

Solution: The citizens in these countries have shown that they are open to new schools being built with funding and assistance provided by western nations. These schools encourage women to participate and teach a well rounded curriculum free of fundamentalist teachings. The resulting improvement in literacy and understanding of the outside world creates a more moderate point of view, and reduces poverty and overpopulation.”

By educating those most likely to involve themselves in terrorist activities – poor people in poverty stricken nations and locales (not just Muslim countries; it is worth noting that the previously mentioned Montreal terrorists were from Kazakhstan and Algeria) – these students are empowered by knowledge and can escape the conditions that lead them toward terrorist cells. In an interview led by Daniel Strauss, the question of whether or not education could lead the war against terror was posed. Talking to the founder of Kashmir Family Aid, Sam Carpenter, Mr. Strauss asked “how will secular education counter terrorism?” Below is Mr. Carpenter’s response:

“What I found was [that] there's three types of schools. There's public schools provided by the government and private schools -- somewhat secular schools that are funded by regular folks over there -- and it's about a 50-50 split. Let me talk about what's taught in those schools: English, math, science, and a reasonable amount of history, and they have textbooks and the whole thing. But there's another kind of school over there, which I'm certain you've heard of, called a Madrassa, and these are religious schools.

The estimates are between fifteen- and twenty-thousand of them in Pakistan alone, and then there's a lot of them in Afghanistan. The long story short is that the kids spend 10 to 12 years -- they go in there at an early age, and they learn the Koran, and that's great, but they don't learn anything else to speak of, a little bit of math, but not much. They come out without a lot of skills. About 15 [percent] to 20 percent I estimate of those schools are what we call militant schools where the kids are taught that, well basically, that the jihad is against the West, and by the time they get out of those schools -- who knows what percentage, but a good number of those students are put right into the jihad ranks and given paid jobs to learn to fight, and so they're paid a very, very high wage, in our money $200 to $300 a month, to carry machine guns and become a jihadist.

Most of the citizenry would much prefer to have the public or private or non-Madrassa-type secular school for their children, but so many times there are no other schools besides the religious Madrassas.”

Seeking a way out of poverty, and having no other options, young men throughout the world are being educated ineffectively by schools that preach violence. In other words, education is causing terrorism; isn’t it therefore a logical conclusion that education would be the most effective deterrent? That’s a big question but the simple, one word answer is; yes. So long as the war on terrorism is fought with guns and bombs, instead of with carpenters who build schools and teachers who educate and actually empower fringe citizens, there is little hope that the people who are forced into these schools will willingly abandon the madras’s which offer them shelter, food, and money. And just imagine for a second how easy it would be for us to begin a campaign directed toward educating those who need it the most. Just imagine how many schools and teachers three trillion dollars could build and pay for. Just imagine the impact of all those empowered students who would be able to not simply just get themselves out of poverty, but their families and friends. Just imagine the social impact of poverty stricken countries and locales seeing the war on terror bring about positive change to their landscape. Just imagine the impact of all those educated youths explaining, debating, and convincing those around them that peace-loving citizens throughout the world believe in them and want to give them the same opportunities that they enjoy, provided that their lives aren’t jeopardized. If there is a common bond among terrorists around the world, it is that they are young, male, and lack opportunity. With that said, if the war on terror is to be an effective one, it cannot be fought with guns and bombs; it must be fought with builders and educators. Thanks for reading. GRMM